• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

DNC files lawsuit against Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks

Angry Floof

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
15,427
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Law and order, bitches.

Democratic Party files lawsuit alleging Russia, the Trump campaign, and Wikileaks conspired to disrupt the 2016 election

The suit filed Friday seeks millions of dollars in compensation to offset damage it claims the party suffered from the hacks. The DNC argues that the cyberattack undermined its ability to communicate with voters, collect donations and operate effectively as its employees faced personal harassment and, in some cases, death threats.

The suit also seeks an acknowledgment from the defendants that they conspired to infiltrate the Democrats’ computers, steal information and disseminate it to influence the election.
Click to expand...
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Is this a good idea at this point?
Click to expand...

I suspect it's more about discovery than money. They're going to have to cough up a lot of records.
Click to expand...

I think that's correct. Unfortunately, this will probably have to wait until all the criminal cases have settled. On the bright side, it should push the case right up against the 2020 elections.
 
I don't understand why they would file this suit. It seems like it could interfere with or compromise Meuller's investigation. Then again, IANAL so who the hell knows. I don't understand most of what the government is doing these days, I'm pretty sure they've all lost their damned minds and this is actually an elaborate set-up for a reboot of The Twilight Zone.
 
Emily Lake said:
I don't understand why they would file this suit. It seems like it could interfere with or compromise Meuller's investigation. Then again, IANAL so who the hell knows.
Click to expand...

IANAL either, but that is why I (perhaps naively) expect this to take a back seat to all the criminal cases in process.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
When I first saw this I thought "this has to be from a satire site."

Now all I can do is shake my head in amazement that they are really going there.
Click to expand...

They went there before on much less, and succeeded.

- - - Updated - - -

Emily Lake said:
I don't understand why they would file this suit. It seems like it could interfere with or compromise Meuller's investigation. Then again, IANAL so who the hell knows. I don't understand most of what the government is doing these days, I'm pretty sure they've all lost their damned minds and this is actually an elaborate set-up for a reboot of The Twilight Zone.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing probably what Loren said, discovery.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
When I first saw this I thought "this has to be from a satire site."

Now all I can do is shake my head in amazement that they are really going there.
Click to expand...

They did it to Nixon after the break-in, and won. This is orders of magnitude worse. Why wouldn't they "go there"? They need to add a few zeroes to the amount.
 
To support Angry Floof's point, here is an excerpt from her Washington Post link in the OP (Democratic Party files lawsuit alleging Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks conspired to disrupt the 2016 campaign):

The lawsuit echoes a similar legal tactic that the Democratic Party used during the Watergate scandal. In 1972, the DNC filed suit against then-President Richard Nixon’s reelection committee seeking $1 million in damages for the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building.

The suit was denounced at the time by Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, who called it a case of “sheer demagoguery” by the DNC. But the civil action brought by the DNC’s then-chairman, Lawrence F. O’Brien, was ultimately successful, yielding a $750,000 settlement from the Nixon campaign that was reached on the day in 1974 that Nixon left office.

The suit filed Friday seeks millions of dollars in compensation to offset damage it claims the party suffered from the hacks. The DNC argues that the cyberattack undermined its ability to communicate with voters, collect donations and operate effectively as its employees faced personal harassment and, in some cases, death threats.

The suit also seeks an acknowledgment from the defendants that they conspired to infiltrate the Democrats’ computers, steal information and disseminate it to influence the election.

To support its case, the lawsuit offers a detailed narrative of the DNC hacks, as well as episodes in which key Trump aides are alleged to have been told Russia held damaging information about Clinton.
Click to expand...
 
Emily Lake said:
Angry Floof said:
I'm guessing probably what Loren said, discovery.
Click to expand...
I don't really know what that means in this context. What does "discovery" mean in this case, and how does it relate to the DNC filing suit? Can someone educate me?
Click to expand...

It means they will have to show evidence. If you sue someone, you have to show what they did and that they intended to cause the harm you're claiming. If this suit is successful as the similar one was in Nixon's presidency, it can only help any criminal trials.

Also, if someone sues you and you know you're innocent and they have no proof*, you wouldn't likely care except for the aggravation of having to show up so as not to lose by default. You'd be like, "bring it." I expect the right wing outrage and misinformation cycle that has already begun to not only continue but ramp up as the case goes forward.

* As people often do for the purpose of intimidation and harassment such as Cohen's suit against Buzzfeed and Fusion GPS, which he dropped because he'd lose and he now knows it.

- - - Updated - - -

Copernicus said:
Oh, yeah. And then there's this: McCabe to sue Trump admin for defamation, wrongful termination.

Who says that America is a litigious society? :yes:
Click to expand...

Well, we better use whatever avenues of justice still available to us while we can.
 
Last edited:
Angry Floof said:
It means they will have to show evidence. If you sue someone, you have to show what they did and that they intended to cause the harm you're claiming. If this suit is successful as the similar one was in Nixon's presidency, it can only help any criminal trials.

Also, if someone sues you and you know you're innocent and they have no proof*, you wouldn't likely care except for the aggravation of having to show up so as not to lose by default. You'd be like, "bring it." I expect the right wing outrage and misinformation cycle that has already begun to not only continue but ramp up as the case goes forward.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this correctly, then the DNC would have to bring forth their evidence against Russia & Trump etc. in order to demonstrate that there was collusion and other shenanigans, right? If they have that evidence, why wouldn't they just provide it to Mueller? Does this lawsuit obligate the sued parties to do something too?
 
Emily Lake said:
Angry Floof said:
It means they will have to show evidence. If you sue someone, you have to show what they did and that they intended to cause the harm you're claiming. If this suit is successful as the similar one was in Nixon's presidency, it can only help any criminal trials.

Also, if someone sues you and you know you're innocent and they have no proof*, you wouldn't likely care except for the aggravation of having to show up so as not to lose by default. You'd be like, "bring it." I expect the right wing outrage and misinformation cycle that has already begun to not only continue but ramp up as the case goes forward.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this correctly, then the DNC would have to bring forth their evidence against Russia & Trump etc. in order to demonstrate that there was collusion and other shenanigans, right? If they have that evidence, why wouldn't they just provide it to Mueller? Does this lawsuit obligate the sued parties to do something too?
Click to expand...

In a civil suit, one can depose witnesses and require documents and records that are relevant to the complaint. The DNC stands to receive some compensation for the damage that was done to them by the alleged actions.
 
Emily Lake said:
Angry Floof said:
It means they will have to show evidence. If you sue someone, you have to show what they did and that they intended to cause the harm you're claiming. If this suit is successful as the similar one was in Nixon's presidency, it can only help any criminal trials.

Also, if someone sues you and you know you're innocent and they have no proof*, you wouldn't likely care except for the aggravation of having to show up so as not to lose by default. You'd be like, "bring it." I expect the right wing outrage and misinformation cycle that has already begun to not only continue but ramp up as the case goes forward.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this correctly, then the DNC would have to bring forth their evidence against Russia & Trump etc. in order to demonstrate that there was collusion and other shenanigans, right? If they have that evidence, why wouldn't they just provide it to Mueller? Does this lawsuit obligate the sued parties to do something too?
Click to expand...

Mueller already has it, and likely much more. The requirements for criminal cases are different from civil suits and much more stringent. Also, what Copernicus said.
 
wikileaks.jpg


trumpsued.jpg


Fun! Fun! Fun!
 
Angry Floof said:
It means they will have to show evidence. If you sue someone, you have to show what they did and that they intended to cause the harm you're claiming. If this suit is successful as the similar one was in Nixon's presidency, it can only help any criminal trials.

Also, if someone sues you and you know you're innocent and they have no proof*, you wouldn't likely care except for the aggravation of having to show up so as not to lose by default. You'd be like, "bring it." I expect the right wing outrage and misinformation cycle that has already begun to not only continue but ramp up as the case goes forward.
Click to expand...

No--it's not about showing evidence--they could do that without the lawsuit.

It's about compelling the GOP to produce documents. (And depositions--answering questions under oath.) They can make some fairly wide-ranging requests for documents relevant to the case at hand--refusal will bring sanctions and if extreme enough, contempt of court. Lying can bring jail time. Furthermore, you don't need to meet the standards of a search warrant.
 
Emily Lake said:
Angry Floof said:
I'm guessing probably what Loren said, discovery.
Click to expand...
I don't really know what that means in this context. What does "discovery" mean in this case, and how does it relate to the DNC filing suit? Can someone educate me?
Click to expand...

Discovery means the Democrats can ask the judge to demand that the defendents cough up any relevant e-mails, records, documents and other evidence, and the defendents have to comply. The Democrats can also ask for possible witnesses to be question in depositions. Under oath. Discovery is a process to obtain evidence. If a party to a suit is thus guilty and there is in fact incriminating evidence, discovery can be a legal kiss of death for the guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom